Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Friend homeless application.


GetOffMyCase
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3759 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

My friend was living with her brother, and unknowingly he handed in his notice to leave, she was informed 3 days before that she had to leave.... nice brother hey.

 

Shes pregnant at the moment as well. So she made an application for homelessness through her local authority. They have ducked and dived on this situation, they have sent her off to other councils to apply.

 

Anyways long story short, they have put her now in temporary accommodation. However they rang her christmas eve to tell her she is intentionally homeless as she had a tenancy on a property a year and a half ago, a 6 month tenancy, which she left after 1 month, as the person she was sharing the property with turned nasty, and people were trying to break into the property all hours of the day, as the person she unwittingly shared the house with was into some bad activites that she had no knowledge of.

 

The properties she has lived at since then the owners have declined to put her on the council tax lists there.... fraudulently of course. So deny that she has been staying there.... this includes her brother.

 

Are the council acting within their rights here, as theoretically she has been temporarily housed by them already.

She also suffers with anxiety and depression and the whole situation has affected this so she is now applying for ESA, as the doctor has signed her off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She needs Shelter to help her here. I believe it to be the law that when assessing homelessness, it is the last accommodation you were in that counts. There is no question that she is in priority need, she's pregant. It seems to me that it is imperative that she prove her last address. No matter what trouble it causes for the remaining occupants over C.Tax etc. Because they are going to say she is in priority need but intentionally homeless, unless she can prove where she was living.

 

The Council have a duty to temporarily house anyone making a homeless application for up to a period of 28 days whilst they investigate. If they say she is intentionally homeless she will have to leave, she'll be on a licence so its likely to be very quick.

 

She'll also need to see her GP to get help with the anxiety - the last thing she needs when pregnant.

 

I hope after the holiday someone with a bit more knowledge of homeless law comes along, as I am no expert, just know bits and pieces from working as a Housing Officer for a very long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are not intentionally homeless if you move out from a pleace where it is not safe for you to be. persons moving out because of domestic violence or because of threats that were likely to be carried out are not intenionally homeless and they are vulnerable and it is not reasonable for them to stay there.

you would need to get a statement from the police about the break-ins into the property- the dates, address, etc to prove that it was not safe for you to stay there. the threat of violence can come from anyone- landlord, housemates, partner, etc- if you move out because of above threats, you are not intentionally homeless. will stick the legislation up here if i find it. you need to print out the relevant legislation and write to the council attaching it and demanding that they house you. to be housed you need to be vulnerable, eg pregnant. you need to have the right to social security. if you get ESA: you do. local connection to the borough where you apply to be housed you have to prove otherwise they do not have to house you hence they tried to fob you off and sent you to another council to save money. Local connection is that you have been living in the borrough and for how long, as you will know.

If upon your written request the police refuses to write a report, get a witness statement from the landlord / ex flatmates about the incidents in the house you left because it was repeatedly broken into. You were statutory homeless while staying at friends / family because legally it is their place and not yours so count your time of "homelessness" that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found the relevant legislation. It would be worth a couple of hours for BOTH the housing applicant and her friend / advisor posting up here to read through Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.

 

Since a year ago local authorities do not have to offer social housing to homeless applicants but they will make an offer of an assured shorthold tenancy with a private landlord, a fixed term, which is normally 6 months. Try to negotiate a longer term. Housing benefit will allow her to pay the rent. Needs to be careful about refusing the offer because then she won't be housed- details in above legislation.

 

EU Jobseekers won't be eligible for homlessness accommodation from the council. Take it she is British. The council has to house her temporarily while looking into the matter further. To evade duty to house, they will try to show that she has more local connection to another borough and that she is intentionally homeless so ASAP file all possible paperwork, reasoning and printout of legislation to prove the opposite.

 

Keep a copy of your submissions and a Certificate of Posting from the post office is needed- if it goes to court, you can prove you wrote to the council. Prove that local connection showing addresses during the past 5 years, whatever paperwork, letters, bank statements, library / gym membership print-out she can find.

 

Be firm and state it in your letter that you are going to appeal and ask damages for distress caused if your application is refused because you are certain that you have most local connection to the named borough and it was not safe for her to live / sleep in a house that was burglarized repeatedly because of rogue housemates [statement from police will win the case for you!!]. Otherwise: no proof: no win. Ask the police in writing to provide a statement telling them it is to support a homelessness housing application of a woman and "please explain in writing why you are unable to provide a statement if so". Does she have any police call out / CAD numbers with the dates of the incidents?

 

Written witness statements [affidavit- sworn statement] will stand in court [about previous addresses or burglaries]. Takes 2 minutes at the county court office to swear that "it is my signature on the witness statement". However, you need to go for written evidence otherwise the council's lawyer may talk you down.

 

Quote the law below to the letter, incl year, full title of the order, built into your reasoning: after all it says that it is not reasonable for you to stay in a place where there is a threat of violence against you and sure that burglar at least swore at her, etc.

 

www dot legislation dot gov dot uk to read the full act / order on the .jpg screen shots below. Click on them to see why the council is not in the win. Good luck and happy new year.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]48394[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]48395[/ATTACH]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...